ArticleeNeuro
Neural Correlates of the Time Marker for the Perception of Event Timing.
Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The perceived present: What is it, and what is it there for?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2020Review
- Piercing of Consciousness as a Threshold-Crossing Operation.Current biology : CB · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While sensory processing latency, inferred from the manual reaction time (RT), is substantially affected by diverse stimulus parameters, subjective temporal judgments are relatively accurate. The neural mechanisms underlying this timing perception remain obscure. Here, we measured human neural activity by magnetoencephalography while participants performed a simultaneity judgment task between the onset of random-dot coherent motion and a beep. In a separate session, participants performed an RT task for the same stimuli. We analyzed the relationship between neural activity evoked by motion onset and point of subjective simultaneity (PSS) or RT. The effect of motion coherence was smaller for PSS than RT, but changes in RT and PSS could both be predicted by the time at which an integrated sensory response crossed a threshold. The task differences could be ascribed to the lower threshold for PSS than for RT. In agreement with the psychophysical threshold difference, the participants reported longer delays in their motor response from the subjective motion onset for weaker stimuli. However, they could not judge the timing of stimuli weaker than the detection threshold. A possible interpretation of the present findings is that the brain assigns the time marker for timing perception prior to stimulus detection, but the time marker is available only after stimulus detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.